On 16 Oct 2012 10:26:59 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main Bri9an France wrote:
You who are still in the field (I'm retired but am open to contracts) are between the rock and the hard place. I doubt the other operating systems vendors are so stupid but I know that I wouldn't want to give management migration ideas. Unfortunately the people who have the clout in an organization to get IBM to back down and smarten up are in all too many cases the ones who are looking for more reasons to bite the bullet and migrate. Possibly one line of attack is seriously reviewing the other environments for applicability to your organization (Windows, Linux, Solaris, Unix of choice, etc.) and seeing if you would like using them. If there is an alternative you can promote and live with then it is worth starting to push back against these IBM policies. In the meanwhile, as a shareholder I am embarrassed by IBM's chutzpah in charging large amounts for an unreliable product (SR and related, not zOS). Clark Morris >Howdy Barb, > See imbedded below... > >On 10/16/2012 12:59 PM, ibmmain wrote: >> Brian, >> >>> Well we had such a pleasant phone call on Friday with IBM reps on this >>> subject. Much to our DISMAY, they maintain that this access was never >>> free and that promoting web sites costs money. >> I think what you're seeing here is that someone at IBM screwed up royally. >> It all comes out because IBM now 'consolidates' their many tools on >> different platforms into one (named SR), and SR is built on assumptions that >> IBM came up with in their ivory tower. SR exposes that most of the customer >> data bases are equally screwed up. New customer numbers are assigned >> sometimes on a product-by-product basis, and it is sufficient for one >> manager at your site signing off on something like this six years ago for >> you now to have a binding contract that does not include opening problems >> electronically. > Yes, I do believe you're totally correct on this. I kinda >had been thinking that especially since we had the meeting Friday and I >kept hearing the same over and over, IBMLINK is what I know, not the >other URL's. And it continues to highly urinate me that they don't have >the guts, nads, choose your optimum word here, to admit it OR even more >importantly, notify upfront. Somewhere in there I have to think breach >of contract when you take away access without notification... > >> >> I have seen this when IBM forced session manager on us (instead of NetView >> Access) by the simple expedient of silently terminating the NVAS licence in >> our contract and substituting session manager instead. We had never agreed >> to that, but my boss had signed off on it when the contract was up for >> renewal and there we were. More recently, when Sterling was bought by IBM, >> IBM was incapable of putting the NDM licence under the same contract we have >> always had opened PMRs under. IBM silently opened a new customer number just >> for NDM and made a colleague of mine admin for it. Need I mention that none >> of us could access that customer number? >> >> I feel your pain. This is certainly NO customer service at all. In the long >> run, it is one more nail in z/OSs coffin > Yes the pounding of nails at IBM is just astounding. A bigot of >them I've been, but no more... >> . >> >> Barbara Nitz >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >> send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > >-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
